Board splits decision on multi-part variance for Orchard Lane property; denies gravel driveway, approves accessory-building requests

The Planning and Zoning Board on May 12 issued mixed rulings on a suite of variances requested for 709 Orchard Lane. The board denied a request to permit a gravel driveway surface but approved three other variances related to accessory structures, including an exemption from the masonry wainscot requirement with a landscaping condition.

The split decision matters because it preserves pavement standards for right-of-way surfaces while allowing the property owner expanded accessory-building capacity and a partial aesthetic exemption under conditions intended to meet the ordinance’s intent.

Petitioner Zachariah Sims (recorded as Sims) told the board he was “asking to build a bigger house” and submitted statutory-criteria responses included in the staff report. Planning staff said they have been “unfavorable of gravel” driveway extensions and provided alternatives such as using track-style treatment that would not require a full paved surface. Staff recommended denial of the gravel-surface variance but supported allowing a fourth accessory structure (not increasing nonconformity), recommended approval of the wainscot exemption if landscaping or a privacy fence screened the west side of the proposed garage, and was unfavorable to exceeding the 50% accessory-square-foot limit but ultimately the board approved that request with no conditions.

On the individual votes, the board moved to deny the gravel-driveway variance because the petitioner did not demonstrate a practical difficulty; the motion to deny carried 4-0-1. The board approved the request to allow a total of four accessory structures, 5-0. The board approved the exemption from the mortar-masonry wainscot on the accessory building with one staff condition (landscaping/privacy fence along the west side), 5-0. The board approved allowing the total accessory square footage to exceed 50% of the primary structure, 5-0. The board then directed corporation counsel to draft findings of fact incorporating the staff report and evidence into the record.

Key numeric details entered into the record: petitioner proposed a 30-by-36-foot building (about 1,080 square feet); the existing garage is 576 square feet; a 50% threshold for the house (as discussed) was cited as about 1,584 square feet, making the proposed accessory total roughly 70–80 square feet over the 50% threshold as described by the petitioner and staff. Staff noted the accessory wainscot requirement is the subject of a proposed text amendment that the Planning Commission will consider later.